INTR_POLARITY_BOTH_EDGES?

[Andriy Gapon]

On 30/06/2020 17:46, Gary Jennejohn wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2020 11:22:42 +0300
> Andriy Gapon <avg at FreeBSD.org> wrote:
> 
>> What do you think about adding this to intr_polarity ?
>> I think that it's useful for two reasons:
>> - support for GPIO interrupts of that kind (GPIO_INTR_EDGE_BOTH)
>> - symmetry with ACPI's ACPI_ACTIVE_BOTH (which probably exists for GPIO as well)
>> This new polarity is to be valid only with INTR_TRIGGER_EDGE as the name (and
>> sanity) implies.
>>
>> By the way, the name is a open for bikeshedding.
>>
> 
> Seems reasonable, but to my embedded-software developer's ear INTR_ACTIVE_BOTH_EDGES
> makes more sense.  I mean, a signal may have a polarity, but an interrupt does not.
> 

Well, the enumeration is named intr_polarity and all its existing members are
prefixed with INTR_POLARITY_.  This is probably not the best naming convention
-- in retrospect.  It sounds natural for level interrupts, but somewhat weird
for edge interrupts.  But I'll leave changing it for another day (if ever).

-- 
Andriy Gapon